aebrown wrote:I know there have been some problems with people using restrictions for other purposes, and some people don't understand them (it is indeed a somewhat complex concept). But I really don't like the decision to simply remove a very useful feature. I don't share your faith that it will work out well to "have units sharing buildings work out their agreements for exclusive nights through coordination and not enforce it in the calendar system."

I agree with this feedback. We had issues in our stake center this last year where some ward organizations jumped the gun and starting grabbing nights before coordination between wards in the building had begun -- this caused havoc and frustration, so we've already put temporary restrictions in place to essentially block anyone from booking the building in 2017 until coordination for that year is complete. To top it off, we have two buildings that are shared between two stakes -- so, this is an inter-stake scheduling consideration for us. I think our building schedulers have been able to effectively use the restrictions, so I'd prefer the feature to remain -- if a stake is confused by this capability, they have the option to not use it.

One thought is to relegate the restriction option to a parameter in the calendar admin options -- it could be set to 'disabled' by default, with the option of the stake 'enabling' it.

I am simply sad to see this feature go away. But then I am apparently one of the few who understand and use Restrictions. As such my ward has always laid out the year in advance and restricted the build and specific rooms assigned to us for the entire year. Our ward schedules events with no problem and we always get the call when another ward attempts to use our night. It is sweet. I've been called to the High Council and I have been assigned to schedule the Pavilion (currently associated with the Stake Center. It was easy to set up a restriction for the one resource and make it non-bookable, thus every attempt to schedule it was thwarted ... however, in this case I really think this should simply be opened up to first come first serve, I don't think the High Council needs to intervene in the scheduling of the Pavilion, let technology work for us. But, I will really miss the ability to preserve our ward's assigned times via the restriction ... it has worked so well for the past 5 years.

Please don't remove this feature. Though we have generally opened up the calendar to "anyone" to reserve the building, the restrictions are essential to let the calendar work mostly "hands-off". Perhaps you are just hearing the extreme cases of displeasure, but there are a number of us that use the restrictions correctly and they are working for us.

Please, do not remove the restrictions feature. Perhaps rename (scheduling template) or a "building hold" or a "unit hold" ?

A feature shouldn't be removed because a training gap or lack of knowing how to use it prevents it from use or that it's confusing. The useful function this feature serves far outweighs past confusion. I really feel (and see in our wards and stake) that this is simply a training and understandning gap that people don't understand. Let's elevate peoples' skills and knowledge and move toward a better use of the product that has been developed and works quite well when people know how to use it. Don't 'punish' those who take the time to have people who understand and use the features ... it sounds a bit like reducing functionality to meet the lowest level of understanding rather than raising others up to a more trained level.

If the feature is destined to be removed, then going to back to an "assisted collobration model" where the various leaders, etc. can input events as they can in current state, but bookings/events are booked in limbo or tentative status until a stake or building scheduler 'validates' or accepts the bookings in their queue would be great. Basically - putting in an approval queue where there schedulers or admins act as the "human restrictions" .... takes away from what the features and current product are intending - which is less 'moderation' ..... but there is some need to have oversight and moderation .... my opinion Restrictions can do this - but people need to get to a level where they are trained to use it properly.Restrictions currently are trying to give some segmented control or segmented moderated environment without having to have a human moderator at hte booking by booking level. This is good - but needs to be used and trained properly - otherwise, let's go back to the Schedulers actually just moderating calendar input via a queue.

I like previous comments about somehow shaping hte restrictions feature to be more "planning themed" ... so people see that they put in restrictions for youth nights, etc. in a template that populates the year, etc. .... that might make it more clear what/how they are intended to be used.

I note ... that when I go to make a Restriction today, the warning message about "this feature is going away in July" has stopped showing up on the new calendar restriction screen .... I am hopeful this means it's being reconsidered and will be kept alive?

Again, more training and awareness can be had/made around this feature - it should stay. LIkely a training video or recorded webinar where someone actually explains how / what on restrictons and then how/what for booking actual events after that on the video may be more productive training than a PDF showing screenshots. This really is only an understanding gap that with modern tech media can be explained in a more clear way (i.e. likely video type training) and shoudl work just great.

Does the removal of the "warning" of feature removal mean that Restriction feature has hope of new or prolonged life?